INSPIRE "noConditionsApply" vs. CC-BY-4.0

EU directive EUR-Lex - 32007L0002 - EN - EUR-Lex on the creation of a common infrastructure for providing geodata also posted a regulation on a registry of common metadata items EUR-Lex - 32008R1205 - EN - EUR-Lex that has provisions for public access type of information.

It knows of two criteria:

There are not many standardised phrases to chose from:) A body of the local administration released data under both unlimited access and no conditions on use - and at the same time under CC-BY-4.0.

Do they not understand CC? Do they lie to the registry? Which clause should guide mappers that want to copy data to OSM?

PS: The dataset Borders of/in Austria.

(about your concrete example):

As far as I understand INSPIRE, it does not enforce the free (as in free-of-cost) distribution of data. Only the metadata has to be freely available.
So, they have to set an INSPIRE classification.

I guess, the additional release of the same dataset as CC-BY-4.0 is because of national OpenGovernment initiatives.
So, they set an open license.

1 Like

As far as I can tell from reading the directive, these conditions are free form text. The registry offers building blocks. For this specific dataset the BEV chose one of them. They could have used the other one or made up something on their own. In my mind, the one chosen makes the data (which the metadata is about) rather CC0 than CC-BY.

If this can be construed as dual-licensing, then mappers would be free to chose licence when copy-painting or importing. I am not fully certain, so I ask here, because INSPIRE affects most of Europe and certainly is of interest to more than mappers in Austria. Sadly, there are no backlinks in the registry, that could be used to find the data governed by the respective clauses.

E.g. the EEA can only use datasets that are not protected in their (pun not intended.)

Hi, from what you wrote, it seems to me that they made an error in applying the value to the metadata “Conditions applying to access and use”. They should have probably simply used the link to Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 in it because, as you wrote, the no conditions apply is more a CC0…

@alesarrett I guess, the local community rather preferred the error in stating CC-BY in addition to “noConditionsApply” :slight_smile: From communication with the office by another member @mcliquid, it seems very likely, that the office indeed does not comprehend CC, much as @SimonPoole stated. Whereas their administrative advisors clearly state, that CC-BY means “Conditions apply”.